I refer to Michael Chugani's Public Eye column ("Let's keep vulgar comments on lawmaker in perspective", June 10).
Exchanging heated criticism and denigrating comments and use of ridicule to express strong disapproval of political figures and their views are the hallmarks of any civilised and decent society.
They are rights which should be protected in a society which believes in freedom of speech. But slurs and insults, and other forms of abusive language on the basis of one's sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or ethnic or national origin, reflect a society where civil rights are in a woeful state.
In such a society, the government turns a blind eye to building a safe space for all, and by doing so fails to prevent possible escalation of violence.
The chief executive is mocked with the nickname of "689", the number of votes he received in the 2012 election, to protest against an undemocratic and dysfunctional political system imposed on the people of Hong Kong. If Chugani believes this is just as objectionable as mocking me with the sexually explicit slur of "three inches", because I am gay, then I leave it to your readers to decide whether his values and opinions reflect their own.
As a member of a racial and linguistic minority in Hong Kong, Chugani should be sensitive to the injuries that can be inflicted upon an individual and a society as a whole by hate speech.